Who gets saved? Just Christians?

[Dave RP]

Here's one of the prime reasons I would never be a believer in Christianity as I was taught it.

1. The only way to salvation and eternal life is through belief in Jesus Christ
2. Therefore all who do not believe in jesus are doomed to eternal damnation
3. Christian doctrine teaches that "innocents" who have not sinned will receive eternal life, babies, unborn children, possibly very young children.
4. Anyone else who has reached adulthood and not embraced, worshipped or believed in Jesus will suffer eternal torment.

Therefore, imagine there is a huge bomb blast in (say) Baghdad (an unfortunately common occurrence) which kills 300 people.

Lets say 30 of them were committed Christians, they get eternal life with god.

There were 30 babies and young children, they get eternal life with god.

There were 240 Muslims and non believers, some of them had lived blameless lives, had followed their god correctly, had done charitable works, had been exemplary citizens, they're in eternal damnation - all of them whereas their children are in eternal salvation.

This is not the actions of a caring loving god, and this is the reason I say that in the event there is a god and an afterlife, it is the same god for everyone, not just one cult, and if there is a judgement it'll be based on how you lived your life not who you happened to worship.

Thoughts?

 

[Petros2015]

Thoughts?

Christianity (should be teaching) according to this verse and to my thinking, that the Father judges no one. Judgement was given specifically to Christ.

John 5:22 Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.…

This is the same person who as He was being nailed to a cross by Romans (after being brutally beaten and mocked) said

Luke 23:34 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

So, I trust the judgement of Christ. This is not a God who is looking for excuses to damn people. This is a God who will do everything He can to save them. He knows what He is doing, and His judgement will be good. And everyone will say "Amen".

Matthew 7:21-23

Matthew 25:31-46

It looks to me like Heaven and Hell have one thing in common. They are both full of very surprised people.

 

[cloudyday2]

Bart Ehrman seems to believe that Jesus believed that the world was governed by Belial (i.e. the devil) and success in this world implied service to Belial and the way of darkness. The Kingdom of Heaven was coming soon, so everybody should renounce worldly success to follow the way of light. This is why Jesus said "blessed are the poor", etc. Jesus advocated indifference to worldly success as the way to future success in the Kingdom of Heaven.

So the idea that a person must know about Jesus or believe in Jesus was probably not part of the original sayings of Jesus. Jesus advocated a lifestyle of disdain for this world and anticipation of the coming world.

 

[Radagast]

There were 240 Muslims and non believers, some of them had lived blameless lives, had followed their god correctly, had done charitable works, had been exemplary citizens

Nobody (except Jesus) has lived a blameless life.

 

[Dave RP]

Nobody (except Jesus) has lived a blameless life.

OK, largely blameless life by the standards of a modern civilised society.

Are they still doomed?

 

[Radagast]

OK, largely blameless life by the standards of a modern civilised society.

Obviously, the relevant standard here is God's. And by that standard, nobody (except Jesus) has lived a blameless life.

 

[GeorgeJ]

There were 240 Muslims and non believers, some of them had lived blameless lives, had followed their god correctly, had done charitable works, had been exemplary citizens, they're in eternal damnation - all of them whereas their children are in eternal salvation.

....not to mention that according to fundagelical Chrisitianity over 6 millions Jews are now in hell after spending all those years in hell on earth during the holocaust.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here's one of the prime reasons I would never be a believer in Christianity as I was taught it.

1. The only way to salvation and eternal life is through belief in Jesus Christ
2. Therefore all who do not believe in jesus are doomed to eternal damnation
3. Christian doctrine teaches that "innocents" who have not sinned will receive eternal life, babies, unborn children, possibly very young children.
4. Anyone else who has reached adulthood and not embraced, worshipped or believed in Jesus will suffer eternal torment.

Therefore, imagine there is a huge bomb blast in (say) Baghdad (an unfortunately common occurrence) which kills 300 people.

Lets say 30 of them were committed Christians, they get eternal life with god.

There were 30 babies and young children, they get eternal life with god.

There were 240 Muslims and non believers, some of them had lived blameless lives, had followed their god correctly, had done charitable works, had been exemplary citizens, they're in eternal damnation - all of them whereas their children are in eternal salvation.

This is not the actions of a caring loving god, and this is the reason I say that in the event there is a god and an afterlife, it is the same god for everyone, not just one cult, and if there is a judgement it'll be based on how you lived your life not who you happened to worship.

Thoughts?

My thoughts? Well, I've commented elsewhere on this type of topic, so I'll just "reprint" it here and you can take it as your response, RP.

******************

Since it is very difficult to see the details in the Big Picture of God's economy of salvation (soteriology), I propose that the Church take a more ambiguous approach to the lost, but an approach which nevertheless still requires Christians to feel a deep-seated need in reaching the lost. And in this approach, I suggest that we simply define as a distinct group those who "will never hear" about Christ from those who "will hear" the Gospel on a sufficient level. In making this distinction, we should should classify those who will never hear of Christ, along with those who have never heard the Gospel in a sufficient manner, as "Unidentifiables."

Why should we classify one group as "Unidentifiables"? We should because from a human point of view, we as the Church do not know, and cannot know, precisely how God will judge each of the them at the Final Judgment. Each "Unidentifiable" stands as a "?" before the Church due to the fact that we do not have enough detail in the Bible to give us a definitive and comprehensive way to understand exactly how "Unidentifiables" will ultimately be judged by God; from our standpoint, God's final judgement upon these particular individuals could go either way. Furthermore, despite their ongoing spiritual anonymity before the Church, each individual in this group remains a person for whom we can pray in the hope that God, in His mercy through Christ, will accept him/her according to the light He has provided them during their lives.

Now, as for those persons who "have heard" the Gospel in a sufficient manner, this group is made up of two categories: The "Acceptors" and the "Objectors." In the case of the acceptors, we have confidence as to where they square in gaining eternal life in Christ. But, as for the objectors, we in the Church know they will not likely gain God's favor in Christ at the Final Judgment.

Thus, with this approach, we take the weight off of having to understand the full economy of God's grace as it relates to the availability of the (clear) Gospel message; we no longer have to answer that time worn question of "What happens to those who've never heard?" We do indeed leave it in the hands of God. Yet, this approach retains the urgency of the Church's need to continue its God directed effort to reach out in love and truth on behalf of Christ to those on all sides and in all places. It also is more honest and may be more appealing as a truthful explanation about what happens to "Unidentifiables."

That's my approach. It's simpler, and it's more philosophically practical -- although I'm open to theological criticisms and other considerations.

***************

So, just to reiterate. It is clear from Scripture that no one is saved apart from the work of Christ. But, as to exactly how that is applied, and to what kind of belief is required--and just how much one has to hear and understand if one truly does want to hear and understand--is up for discussion. Some Christians think that only those who clearly and distinctly hear "the Gospel" and accept it will be saved; other Christians like myself think that while it is only Jesus who makes salvation at all possible for any person, what is also important on our part is for us to respond positively to whatever light God puts into our lives, whether that be an entire New Testament that can be easily read, or the sheer realization by the pagan that "something is wrong" with his/her non-Christian culture and worldview and thereby reaches out to "the God that is...!"

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Hawkins]

Here's one of the prime reasons I would never be a believer in Christianity as I was taught it.

1. The only way to salvation and eternal life is through belief in Jesus Christ
2. Therefore all who do not believe in jesus are doomed to eternal damnation
3. Christian doctrine teaches that "innocents" who have not sinned will receive eternal life, babies, unborn children, possibly very young children.
4. Anyone else who has reached adulthood and not embraced, worshipped or believed in Jesus will suffer eternal torment.

Therefore, imagine there is a huge bomb blast in (say) Baghdad (an unfortunately common occurrence) which kills 300 people.

Lets say 30 of them were committed Christians, they get eternal life with god.

There were 30 babies and young children, they get eternal life with god.

There were 240 Muslims and non believers, some of them had lived blameless lives, had followed their god correctly, had done charitable works, had been exemplary citizens, they're in eternal damnation - all of them whereas their children are in eternal salvation.

This is not the actions of a caring loving god, and this is the reason I say that in the event there is a god and an afterlife, it is the same god for everyone, not just one cult, and if there is a judgement it'll be based on how you lived your life not who you happened to worship.

Thoughts?

Perhaps you should watch more zombie movies to tell why humans have to kill them all rampantly in order to save one single fellow human.

The parable of wheat and weeds could well be humans and zombies. The zombies (weeds) have something fundamentally different in them, which we humans may not tell the difference by now. They will however turn to the zombies by their own will some day (the day when the weeds can be separated from the wheat).

So the point is, you don't know eventually who you will be because you don't have the ability to know your own future. You don't have to assume that you are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Hitler never knew he's a devil when he was 16 years old, no human did. If Hitler couldn't tell who he himself is several tens of years later, how can you know who you will be 100000000000 years later?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" - St. Cyprian of Carthage

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say." - Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 247-248

"Let these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answers can be found) be given to their enemies by the redeemed family of the Lord Christ, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ. But let this city bear in mind, that among her enemies lie hid those who are destined to be fellow-citizens, that she may not think it a fruitless labor to bear what they inflict as enemies until they become confessors of the faith. So, too, as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints. Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear. These men you may to-day see thronging the churches with us, to-morrow crowding the theatres with the godless. But we have the less reason to despair of the reclamation even of such persons, if among our most declared enemies there are now some, unknown to themselves, who are destined to become our friends. In truth, these two cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until the last judgment effects their separation. I now proceed to speak, as God shall help me, of the rise, progress, and end of these two cities; and what I write, I write for the glory of the city of God, that, being placed in comparison with the other, it may shine with a brighter lustre." - St. Augustine, City of God, Book 1.35

There is, on the one hand, the affirmative confession: that salvation is found no where else except in Jesus Christ; and that the way this salvation looks in the world is in the Church--in the preaching of the Word, the Sacraments, in the life together of faith of the people of Christ. And yet we read that "God is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe" (1 Timothy 4:10) and that the revelation of God in Christ is that He is the One who is saving the world, not condemning or damning the world--"God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world would be saved through Him."

There are, therefore, many who are not visible members of the Church, who are nevertheless members of the Church; and there are many who rank as her members who are truly not part of her. The day will come when the Shepherd will separate the sheep and the goats. All will stand before Christ, the judge of the living and the dead, and we should not be surprised to find that even as there will be many who will on that day say "Lord, Lord" and He will say, "I never knew you"; there will also be those who will say, "When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or a foreigner, or sick, or in prision?" And He will say, "Whatever you did to the least of these, you did it unto Me"

St. Isaac the Syrian writes,

"Let us not be in doubt, O fellow humanity, concerning the hope of our salvation, seeing that the One who bore sufferings for our sakes is very concerned about our salvation; God's mercifulness is far more extensive than we can conceive, God's grace is greater than what we ask for."

The Christian can never depend upon himself for salvation--not in his works, not in his believing the right things, not in this or in that--but only in the grace of God. And I believe that the One who saved a wretch such as me is quite able and willing to save a world broken and shattered by death, suffering, sin, and enmity toward God. I think when St. Paul writes, "Here is a trustworthy saying worthy of full acceptance, that Christ came into the world to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners" he is confessing that if God in His kindness was willing and able to save the hell-bent Saul of Tarsus breathing murderous threats against Christ's own people, then God is willing and able to save everyone. We should therefore have faith in the God who makes Himself known to us in Christ as the gracious and kind Savior of all men.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChetSinger]

Here's one of the prime reasons I would never be a believer in Christianity as I was taught it.

1. The only way to salvation and eternal life is through belief in Jesus Christ
2. Therefore all who do not believe in jesus are doomed to eternal damnation
3. Christian doctrine teaches that "innocents" who have not sinned will receive eternal life, babies, unborn children, possibly very young children.
4. Anyone else who has reached adulthood and not embraced, worshipped or believed in Jesus will suffer eternal torment.

...

Thoughts?

There will be non-Christians who receive eternal life. To see Christ's criteria for admitting them read Matthew 25:31-46. This is the judgment of the "nations", which in the minds of Jesus' 1st-century Jewish audience would be the judgment of the "non-chosen" (Israel being the "chosen"). They're judged by their works of generosity and compassion. And some of them meet Christ's criteria. What I read into this passage is that Christ wants to share eternal life with generous and compassionate people, whether they've been chosen by him or not.

 

[Radagast]

To see Christ's criteria for admitting them

John 3:18: Whoever believes in him [God's Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

 

[Dave RP]

John 3:18: Whoever believes in him [God's Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Two contradictory answers in the last to responses, this is why I enjoy this debating site, there is no agreement amongst Christians as to who might get to enter heaven, should it exist.

Having been to the British Museums exhibition on "Living with gods - peoples, places and worlds beyond" at the weekend I am more convinced that ever that in the event god exists, it will be the same god for everyone, I just cannot see that it would single out a small proportion of humanity who happened to worship it in the correct manner.

Mind you, I still can't get myself to believe in any of the available deities, but having seen how people all over the world devoutly follow a particular religion, there are so many gods available and so many ways of connecting to them, it seems a bit arrogant for any of them to state - "we got it right, you lot didn't, we are saved, you lot are not"

Living with gods

 

[ChetSinger]

...Having been to the British Museums exhibition on "Living with gods - peoples, places and worlds beyond" at the weekend I am more convinced that ever that in the event god exists, it will be the same god for everyone, I just cannot see that it would single out a small proportion of humanity who happened to worship it in the correct manner.

Mind you, I still can't get myself to believe in any of the available deities, but having seen how people all over the world devoutly follow a particular religion, there are so many gods available and so many ways of connecting to them, it seems a bit arrogant for any of them to state - "we got it right, you lot didn't, we are saved, you lot are not"

Living with gods

Actually, the Bible does indeed say after a human rebellion that occurred about 4,000 years ago God turned his back on most of mankind, dividing them up into seventy nations and putting in place a layer of angelic "middle management" over each one.

Those seventy angelic beings, in Hebrew called "sons of God", were who mankind were forced to interface with, unless one was an Israelite. That resulted in a polytheistic reality for most people. Each angel's authority was determined by territory, with God keeping Palestine for himself and for Israel, his own personal nation.

Here's one place it's described, in Deuteronomy:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.​

And it's amplified here in early rabbinic commentary (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan):

And the Lord said to the seventy angels which stand before Him, Come, we will descend and will there commingle their language, that a man shall not understand the speech of his neighbour. And the Word of the Lord was revealed against the city, and with Him seventy angels, having reference to seventy nations, each having its own language, and thence the writing of its own hand: and He dispersed them from thence upon the face of all the earth into seventy languages.​

Later in the scripture, some of these beings are seen as having turned against God (such as in Psalms 82 and Daniel 10). So, the Bible says that early mankind did indeed have a polytheistic existence. God wasn't available to them; only lesser beings were.

All of that changed after the resurrection of Jesus, when the Father gave all nations into his hands. So for the past 2,000 years mankind has been able to call directly upon God as we did in the very beginning. But for a time it wasn't that way.

Was this relevant to you?

 

[Dave RP]

Actually, the Bible does indeed say after a human rebellion that occurred about 4,000 years ago God turned his back on most of mankind, dividing them up into seventy nations and putting in place a layer of angelic "middle management" over each one.

Those seventy angelic beings, in Hebrew called "sons of God", were who mankind were forced to interface with, unless one was an Israelite. That resulted in a polytheistic reality for most people. Each angel's authority was determined by territory, with God keeping Palestine for himself and for Israel, his own personal nation.

Here's one place it's described, in Deuteronomy:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.​

And it's amplified here in early rabbinic commentary (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan):

And the Lord said to the seventy angels which stand before Him, Come, we will descend and will there commingle their language, that a man shall not understand the speech of his neighbour. And the Word of the Lord was revealed against the city, and with Him seventy angels, having reference to seventy nations, each having its own language, and thence the writing of its own hand: and He dispersed them from thence upon the face of all the earth into seventy languages.​

Later in the scripture, some of these beings are seen as having turned against God (such as in Psalms 82 and Daniel 10). So, the Bible says that early mankind did indeed have a polytheistic existence. God wasn't available to them; only lesser beings were.

All of that changed after the resurrection of Jesus, when the Father gave all nations into his hands. So for the past 2,000 years mankind has been able to call directly upon God as we did in the very beginning. But for a time it wasn't that way.

Was this relevant to you?

No, not at all but thanks.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is not a God who is looking for excuses to damn people. This is a God who will do everything He can to save them.

Considering this god is all-powerfull, I don't see why he would need to go through such elaborate schemes with having his son / himself / whoever crucified and all that stuff.

If this god is all-powerfull AND the one who makes to rules by which souls are judged, he could just be fair about it and not demand any blood sacrifices or what-have-you.

He could just simply forgive and save based on reasonable criteria instead of what you "believed" by geographic accident.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, the Bible does indeed say after a human rebellion that occurred about 4,000 years ago God turned his back on most of mankind, dividing them up into seventy nations and putting in place a layer of angelic "middle management" over each one.

Those seventy angelic beings, in Hebrew called "sons of God", were who mankind were forced to interface with, unless one was an Israelite. That resulted in a polytheistic reality for most people. Each angel's authority was determined by territory, with God keeping Palestine for himself and for Israel, his own personal nation.

Except polytheistic religions are older then 4000 years.
Far older, actually.

 

[Radagast]

Except polytheistic religions are older then 4000 years.
Far older, actually.

Polytheistic religions don't survive. Sooner or later somebody says "that can't be right." In Hinduism that happened with the Vedanta: Hinduism is polytheistic on the surface, but monist or monotheistic underneath.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Polytheistic religions don't survive.

Hinduism is a polythestic religion that is far older then christianity.
Really doesn't agree with your claim, it seems.

Sooner or later somebody says "that can't be right." In Hinduism that happened with the Vedanta: Hinduism is polytheistic on the surface, but monist or monotheistic underneath.

Hindu's would disagree with that.
In fact just yesterday, I watched a discussion panel with a hindu priest as the representative of "polytheistic religion". He had no issues with that description. In fact, it was his whole purpose of being there... to represent polytheism.

 

[Radagast]

Hinduism is a polythestic religion that is far older then christianity.

Hinduism is certainly old. It seems to share the same origins as Greek religion, from before the Indo-European influx into India.

But is it truly polytheistic? It is on the surface, and many uneducated adherents would see it that way. But in the dominant school, that of Advaita Vedanta, there is only one God, Brahman -- if "God" is the right word, since the physical universe is illusory and is really part of Brahman (this has been popularised as "there is no spoon"). In fact, there is only Brahman: the self-identity of individual humans is equally illusory, and they are also part of Brahman (this is the meaning of Tat Tvam Asi: तत्त्वमसि).

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, someone asks the teacher Yajnavalkya, “How many gods are there?” “Three thousand and three,” the teacher replies. Questioning this, he is told, “There are thirty-three gods.” He asks again, and is told, “There are six.” Yet again, he asks, and receives the reply, “There are only three gods.” Once more he asks, and is told, “One and a half gods.” And when he asks one final time, Yajnavalkya tells him “There is one god.” That is Hinduism.

In some ways, that response echoes Plato's view of Greek polytheism.